Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Apostle12

The following discussion is an archived record of an user conduct request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

To remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 21:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 04:37, 19 April 2025 (UTC).

Apostle12 (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Desired outcome

Apostle12 will agree to refrain from offering personal opinion of the subject, and limit discussion to the substance of prospective or recent edits
Apostle12 will agree to refrain from disparaging personal remarks
Apostle12 will agree to refrain from canvassing in order to push Apostle12's own views of the topic
Apostle12 will agree to submit only edits that are based in reliable sources, and not e.g. solely from media reports
Apostle12 will agree to not re-submit material based on sources that have been found previously to be inapplicable or less than reliable
Apostle12 will agree to follow the bold, revert, discuss cycle, and refrain from violating the three revert rule, either explicitly or in spirit

Description

Since the beginning of November 2012, Apostle12's edits to White privilege have displayed a number of hallmarks of disruptive editing. For a period of roughly a week, Apostle12 made a concerted effort to introduce mitigating language into the lede paragraph of the article. Notifications were made on Apostle12's talk page, and a request to WP:DRN was submitted, stemming from a dispute about the meaning of weasel words and the proper context for "alleged". At that time, more substantial revisions were submitted to the lede.

For the next few weeks, Apostle12 engaged in substantial periods of soapboxing on the talk page, drawing other editors into arguments while seeming to push a personal POV: at first, that white privilege does not exist, and at some point thereafter, that there are scholarly works that dispute its existence. On a number of occasions, I and other editors offered help with integrating such criticism into the body of the article, but Apostle12 was not forthcoming with evidence of a legitimate scholarly dispute (which there may be).

At one point, Apostle12 made a substantial contribution, in the form of a criticism section. However, the sources used were not up to WP standards, and another user, Marie Paradox suggested that these same sources had been the subject of edits in the past, and the previous consensus was that they were unreliable.

This prompted a back-and-forth on Apostle12's and Marie Paradox's talk pages, which included personal attacks on Marie Paradox (which Apostle12 claimed was justified given some comments on Marie Paradox's talk page, though the comment in question was from 2009), and eventually, other editors.

At roughly the same time, Apostle12 contacted other editors with a history of edit conflicts on White privilege that appear to be aligned ideologically, successfully canvassing several editors with similar views to the article.

For a period of several weeks, Apostle12 has stated that they would make no edits to the article itself, but continued to pontificate and use the talk page as a soapbox, disrupting the process the talk page was designed for.

During that period, several new editors arrived with clear POVs aligned with or identical to Apostle12, sparking an edit war that prompted the protection of the page. Given the history of Apostle12's possible WP:CAN violations, it remains a suspicious event in at least one editor's mind, especially in light of the 2005 ArbCom ruling (quoted from WP:MEAT):

For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee issued a decision in 2005 stating "whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets."

Apostle12's hiatus from editing at White privilege suggested to some editors that a RfC/U was no longer a priority. Since Apostle12 has returned to editing that page, it seems like comment and input on Apostle12's previous behavior could be helpful in guiding him or her in their future edits.

Other editors tell of a much lengthier history of similar behavior by Apostle12 at White privilege, and additional references from earlier interactions can be provided, if needed.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Initial incident, verges on outright WP:3RR and/or WP:NPOV [1], [2], [3]

WP:CAN [4], [5], [6],

[7] Added post-certification by UseTheCommandLine (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

previous attempt to work with Apostle12 on this: [8]

WP:V (some references may be acceptable, some not) [9], ensuing discussion

WP:SOAP [10], [11]

WP:NPA [12], [13], [14], [15]

Applicable policies and guidelines

WP:DE
WP:NPOV
WP:SOAP
WP:NPA
WP:OWN
WP:CAN
WP:V
potentially, WP:3RR depending on one's interpretation

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(Provide diffs of the comments. As with anywhere else on this RfC/U, links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Attempts by certifier UseTheCommandLine

Initial incident: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]

I have made many more attempts to provide help and a more civil direction, and would be happy to provide more recent instances of such, upon request. There are simply too many examples for me to sort through them all easily.

Attempts by certifier Marie Paradox

Instances in which I tried to address behavior listed above under "Evidence of disputed behavior"

Is it also worth noting that I often responded to personal attacks by letting them roll off my back, as recommended at WP:NPA, e.g., [24][25]?

Recent Instances in Which I Tried to Address Similar Behavior

[26] (WP:NPA)
[27] (WP:V)

Other attempts

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Other users who endorse this summary

{Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. Discussion of this view or other people's endorsements belongs on the talk page, not in this section.}

Response

This section is reserved for the use of the user whose conduct is disputed. Users writing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section, and the person writing this section should not write a view below. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but no one except the editor(s) named in the dispute may change the summary here.

This very long set of complaints arrives as I prepare for Christmas travels and New Year's celebrations. To do justice to all that has been submitted, I will need to delay my more detailed response, which I should be able to complete by 1-5-13.

Meanwhile, I note that many of the complaints are quite dated, and some are clearly not accurate (e.g. assertions that I violated the three-revert rule, when I clearly stopped at two reverts - something that Marie Paradox just did herself yesterday, 12-21-12). Also, resolution of the original dispute regarding mitigating language occured long ago when the lede language was strengthened ("in critical race theory" became "within the academic discipline of critical race theory"). Then the lede was changed wholesale, completely eliminating the compromise solution.

I am suspicious that the submission of these complaints immediately follows my decision to resume editing the article. In particular it comes on the heels of my decision to "undo" Marie Paradox's recent double revert. This seems retaliatory.

Especially disturbing are allegations that I have been involved in sockpuppetry, which is absolutely false. Or that I may have covertly canvassed other editors, which is also false. The one instance when I contacted three other editors (whose edit history I had not reviewed, so I did not know their opinions, only that they favored inclusion of a "Criticism" section) was done with complete transparency with notification on Talk that I had done so. I prepared the new "Criticism" section in good faith at the repeated suggestion of UsetheCommandLine, and I thought the three editors might like to become involved. UsetheCommandLine claims that I contacted editors "with a history of edit conflicts;" I see no evidence that the three editors I contacted have such a history.

Then I read this gem:

For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee issued a decision in 2005 stating "whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets."

I gather this means that even though I have never used sockpuppets, the fact that other editors happened to arrive voicing some similar concerns means that I may be treated just as though I had used sockpuppets. Amazing! Especially since the new arrivals displayed completely different styles and the overlap of our concerns was only partial. Indeed, I find it offensive that the new editors' rather crude editing habits were seen as similar to my own, and I am certainly not to blame for any disruption they caused, the ensuing edit war, and the article's being locked for three days.

In fact one of the previous editors I contacted, Thucydides411, has since made valuable contributions to the article,and he has offered a very high level of critique and commentary. The other, EyePhoenix, made only one brief comment, and he certainly was not disruptive. The third editor, Kikodawgzzz, has not responded. My contacting the three editors has caused no problems whatever - for UsetheCommandLine, Marie Paradox or anyone else - because none of them have engaged in "disruptive" editing. Claims to the contrary are simply false.

What the current editors seem not to understand is that many readers of the White privilege article notice that little or no effective criticism of the "white privilege" concept is allowed to remain in the article for very long; if cogent criticism is added, in short order UsetheCommandLine or Marie Paradox revert it wholesale or water it down to the point of being ineffective. They first attack sourcing, and if that proves unsuccessful they make the nebulus claim of "undue emphasis" to justify their reverts. In this regard, I believe editors UsetheCommandLine and Marie Paradox act as a tag team and engage in WP:OWN behavior. I predict problems with WP:OWN will continue as long as these editors, along with a few others, attempt to illegitimately control article content by limiting criticism of the "white privilege" concept, especially if it is effective criticism.

These general statements will have to suffice for now. Detailed, point-by-point response to follow. Apostle12 (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Views

This section is for statements or opinions written by users not directly involved with this dispute, but who would like to add a view of the dispute. Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" or "Response") should not normally edit this section, except to endorse another person's view.

Outside view by Til Eulenspiegel

In my experiences over 6 years of editing, Apostle12 has only been one of wikipedia's productive, thoughtful and reasonable editors since 2006. It is indeed dismaying to see the recent trend of these transparently political RFC's, that it seems are being employed as a tactic in a crass attempt to manipulate consensus, by restricting certain discussions to a relatively small number of editors who share the same viewpoint. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Agreed. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is exactly right. When I began editing, my right to do so was immediately called into question by Marie Paradox: [28]. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Elkman

I haven't done a huge, detailed review of Apostle12's contributions, but after doing a scan of Talk:White privilege, I don't find a lot of evidence that Apostle12 is doing anything egregious in terms of personal conduct. The discussion there looks rather heated, although that isn't surprising given that the subject matter is contentious. Looking over the tone of discussion on that page, though, Apostle12's behavior looks no more out of line than Marie Paradox's or UseTheCommandLine's behavior. (With one exception: The subject heading "A truly hopeless article with truly hopeless editors" is pushing it. Then again, I've been known to get that attitude when I'm frustrated.)

As far as canvassing goes, there's a fine line between asking for more viewpoints on a discussion and blatantly saying, "I need your support here because I'm losing an argument."

The thing that does trouble me, though, is the idea that a content dispute is suddenly boiling over into an RFC/U where two editors are trying to get another editor sanctioned. The proper place for this discussion would be an RFC over the article, not a mini-inquisition into Apostle12's conduct. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Agreed. This is not a proper use of RFC/U. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. dci | TALK 18:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 07:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by DCI2026

The idea of white privilege is innately contentious. Whatever an editor's personal opinion about the subject, he or she should strive to describe the facts and existent arguments in an entirely impartial tone. Apostle12's views differ from those of the two editors certifying this RfC; however, I am not convinced that he has done anything to insert his opinions into the article. Perhaps the repeated inclusion of the word "alleged" in the lead skirts the line of inappropriateness, but his intentions of keeping the article impartial certainly doesn't. I'm also skeptical of the claim that Apostle12 violated WP:SOAP in diff 10.

My view is fairly simple: Apostle12's edits do not merit the points outlined under "Desired outcomes". That said, there are some serious issues regarding this article that ought not to be dealt with in this forum. The problem is clear, with two parties of editors having difficulty getting past differing viewpoints regarding article content. I would strongly encourage all editors involved in this dispute to take a step back from the article, then review it in its entirety, with an emphasis on neutrality and approprite sourcing. If the problems persist, mediation would be a better alternative than pinning the problem on one editor and bringing it here.

Users who endorse this summary:

dci | TALK 18:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by ClaudeReigns

This is a difficult situation, but not unworkable. Sometimes a subject can have so much emotion that the content and the behavior tend to converge. There is a fortunate aspect to this: one might imply a content solution from a behavior solution. One could perceive that this RfC/U for an allegation, or choose to view it as a sharing of perceptions, and even choose to view it as constructive. This is not to say that I don't have a perception of what's going on. For the sake of neutrality, I can choose not to state it. I see that editors' perceptions have resulted in offenses being taken. I hope for the sake of the project that these can be forgiven. I love that all of you care about inequality and have chosen sources which speak to that. You may be very close to achieving a resolution to the problems which would result in removal of boilerplates, making the project look good, and a better understanding of one another which will result in many positive effects.

Users who endorse this summary:

ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.